As for your earlier question, it might be best to cite the Ven. Sayadaw U Thittila on this matter, as he dealt with it nicely:

According to Buddhism the universe evolved, but it did not evolve out of nothingness, it evolved out of the dispersed matter of a previous universe; and when this universe is dissolved. its dispersed matter, or its residual energy which is continually renewing itself, will in time give rise to another universe in the same way. The process is therefore cyclic and continuous, and the universe itself is composed of millions of world systems, each with its various planes of existence.

Wow. This must be the best quote I've come across that shows the correlation of much of Buddhist Dhamma with the newer theories coming from respected cosmologists on the origin of our universe. bookmarked with much gratitude.

Logged

Metta

Andy BarnesMy comments are by nature, subjective interpretations from my mind. As such, they are never wrong, They are as they are. They are never right, They are as they are.

A HANDFUL OF LEAVESThe Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?

‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’

‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

So far, over the last few years since 1963 (50 years, give or take a few months) I have found the following in common between Theravada and Mahayana (perhaps not all Mahayana, but most):

I. The Buddha was enlightened.II. The Buddha had many previous lives.III. The Buddha taught:A. The Four Noble Truths 1. Which included The Fact of Dukkha 2. The cause of dukkha 3. That there was a means of eliminating dukkha. 4. That means was The Noble Eight Fold Path.B. Dependent OriginationC. Kamma / KarmaD. ImpermanenceE. EmptinessF. RebirthG. The 31 Planes of Existence within the 31 Realms.H. The Khandas / SkandasI. The aggregatesJ. MeditationK. MindfulnessL. The Five Basic PreceptsM. The Six Sense DoorsN. Mara (The Tempter / The Lord of Delusion / The King of Death)O. RebirthP. Nibbana / NirvanaQ. Study of Documents written about The Buddha ( Suttas / Sutras )R. Celebration of Puja's / Buddhist Holidays.S. The coming of the next Buddha (Maitreyah)T. Chanting

Of all Buddhist sects around today, I believe that Theravada is closest to the Buddha’s original teachings. Why would I say this as a Mahayana Buddhist? Because Mahayana adapted the Buddha’s original teachings for a broader audience, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Even in the Pali canon, which is believed to represent the oldest Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha taught in different ways to different people in different circumstances. This principle of adaptability is called upaya or skillful means:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya

As a Mahayana Buddhist, I've long believed the celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, such as Amitabha and Avalokitesvara, to be symbolic of our own potential for enlightenment and of the unconditioned true nature of all things, rather than literal god-like beings:https://www.thoughtco.com/atheism-and-devotion-in-buddhism-449718